It isn't necessarily a made-up statistic, but it is a misleading one. PETA takes in sick animals for free so people can afford to euthanize humanely (vets are expensive), and they offer the same service to animal shelters. They don't even run an adoption service. They refer the healthy animals to the animal shelters and take the unhealthy animals that the shelters will not take. All of this is in the VA inspection report, which I will conveniently link from the website of an industry lobbying group running the smear campaign.

So of all the animals turned into PETA, 1877, only 130 of them were healthy enough to be transfered to an adoption shelter and the rest were put down.That they 'close out their books' by emptying the cages into the incinerator is all the proof I need that this place exists just as a slaughterhouse.

nocturnal001:So their actual words that I posted don't mean exactly what I have said? Do we need to have a semantics debate?

No, they don't. And I'm happy to have that debate. I'll even start:PETA says "Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans."Does that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. It simply says that animals have value separate from their utility to us.

PETA continues: We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.Does that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. Sure, they believe humans and animals both have that right, but that doesn't mean that humans don't have more rights.

Continuing:Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."And does that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. It repeats that animals have value beyond their usefulness to humans, and that, as with all creatures, they like living and don't like pain.

Are we to take these two clear statements - "animals have value even the absence of humans" and "animals have a right not to be tortured" - that PETA believes that animals should have the right to jury trials? Or that animals should be free from unreasonable searches? Or that animals should be allowed to vote?

Of course not. Clearly, their philosophy does not extend to the hyperbolic extremes you've cast it as.

Your turn.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money for other projects.

On the contrary, they clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of a right to "live free from pain and suffering".You can tell that that's what they say because I used quote marks, rather than your paraphrasing attempt to enlarge their statement to a right not to be hurt or killed. They are not hypocrites, because painless euthanasia does not infringe that right.Similarly, I believe that humans also have that right, but I also believe in euthanasia or assisted suicide for the terminally ill. In fact, it's not a "but", but a "therefore" - I don't believe people should be forced to live out their days in pain and suffering. It would, instead, be hypocritical to believe that no one should ever be allowed release from pain.

You are right. Technically they are not hypocrites. However their philosophy is not logically consistent and probably immoral by most measures.

Of course I have. But never to this degree: "When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility."

See, you (and others) are chiding PETA for doing something you have no problem with, which, by your own definition, means you've instantly lost all credibility. Thus, because of your post, we should disregard your post.

Now see here. I don't condone killing animals. Not for population control because some people are just terrible at living up to the responsibilities they take on. I have 2 cats right now and would have many more if I ever walked into a shelter. Not once did I state that I agreed euthanasia was acceptable but you just painted me with that brush as you did most others here simply because they individually did not say that they disagreed with it either. That is you knowingly putting false words in others mouths and is why you are viewed as such a dick. Obviously you don't really care about peta either, you just enjoy being contrary. You and your little group of sycophants love to troll the threads and flex your vocabulary muscles by mocking others and snning every word to keep them on the defensive. Why don't you and ciberido go to the political threads and stroke each others egos' while those interested in amiable discourse continue it without your repulsive bile stinking up the joint?

nickerj1:My numbers weren't wrong. I was comparing them to other humane groups. You're comparing their numbers against a stat that rolls in city and county run animal controls depts. So what's PETA's purpose? Their %euthanization and %adoption rates are worse than the county and city animal controls. Compared to other humane groups (which in 2011, all other humane groups only euthanized at 19% compared to PETA's 96%) they're vastly inferior. Compared to rescue groups their rates are vastly inferior. Compared to everyone their adoption and euthanization rates are vastly inferior.

If their rates are so poor, why do they do it? They're certainly not helping the animals out. You assert it's because they take in animals who are sick, thus they have to euthanize more of them. I would wager that the county and city run animal control depts are perfectly capable of euthanizing the sick animals. Also, I can't imagine that 80% of the animals they take in are near-death (to account for the 80% euthanization difference). So your "they take in more sick animals" argument isn't really persuasive. Your comment regarding the smear campaign is also unpersuasive, as the source being cited is Virginia DACS.

They don't offer adoption to the public. They offer free euthanization service. What do you not understand about this? The smear campaign is based on this false premise that they aren't finding enough homes for pets. That is not a service that they offer. They refer those pets to the other shelters.

Ohlookabutterfly:Theaetetus: Ohlookabutterfly: Have you ever been wrong in your life?

Of course I have. But never to this degree: "When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility."

See, you (and others) are chiding PETA for doing something you have no problem with, which, by your own definition, means you've instantly lost all credibility. Thus, because of your post, we should disregard your post.

Now see here. I don't condone killing animals. Not for population control because some people are just terrible at living up to the responsibilities they take on. I have 2 cats right now and would have many more if I ever walked into a shelter. Not once did I state that I agreed euthanasia was acceptable but you just painted me with that brush as you did most others here simply because they individually did not say that they disagreed with it either. That is you knowingly putting false words in others mouths and is why you are viewed as such a dick.

Are you a vegan? I'm sure you must be, since you said you don't condone killing animals, and I'd hate to suggest that you were a hypocrite with no credibility. At least, not without confirming it.

Obviously you don't really care about peta either, you just enjoy being contrary.

Just because I don't ascribe to your black vs. white, our-team-or-their-team philosophy doesn't mean I'm just being contrary. See, I have the ability to criticize an organization for things they actually say and do, without the need to go into hyperbole and suggest that they're inhuman monsters and that everything they do is the exact opposite of all that's holy and good. I can disagree with PETA's sexist and misogynistic campaigns, while simultaneously acknowledging that they're not actually a death-cult. And I can also disagree with people calling them a monstrous death-cult, while agreeing that PETA shouldn't receive donations and is wrong about medical research. It's called nuance.It's also called credibility: you have a lot more if you're not complaining that anyone who disagrees with you in even the slightest way must be the spawn of satan.

Mr Guy:Ok, so that may be enough to help their numbers if they were only 30 to 50% higher in their rates. Their rates are so much higher they don't even make sense to compare. They kill about 130 animals for every animal they lives, compared to the state average that's close to 1 to 1, according to that inspection report. Even granting them that they deliberate take hard cases, they are claiming to justifiably kill 10% of all animals killed by shelters in Virginia. That one shelter kills 1 in 10 animals euthanized in Virginia, which may be okay if Virginia was the size of Rhode Island, but there's more than 10 other shelters that are offering the exact same services as PETA claims to provide with radically different results just in Norfolk, where this kill center is located.

I know you really want to believe it's just a fall out of the numbers because they take on hard cases, but it's a lie. Their numbers reflect their view that no one should raise animals in their home, if it can at all be avoided.

They don't offer adoption because the animal shelters do that. Your entire premise makes no sense. They offer free euthanization for people who can't afford a vet to provide humane means.

I really don't understand how this is news. I hate PETA like everyone else, but this program has been around for a long time and it does a necessary service. People can bring sick/dying pets to have them humanely euthanized. That, and you can't just stop euthanizing cats and dogs when the breeding severely outpaces adoption retention rates. They've never even tried to pretend they were doing anything so this is just craziness.

cousin-merle:Mr Guy: Ok, so that may be enough to help their numbers if they were only 30 to 50% higher in their rates. Their rates are so much higher they don't even make sense to compare. They kill about 130 animals for every animal they lives, compared to the state average that's close to 1 to 1, according to that inspection report. Even granting them that they deliberate take hard cases, they are claiming to justifiably kill 10% of all animals killed by shelters in Virginia. That one shelter kills 1 in 10 animals euthanized in Virginia, which may be okay if Virginia was the size of Rhode Island, but there's more than 10 other shelters that are offering the exact same services as PETA claims to provide with radically different results just in Norfolk, where this kill center is located.

I know you really want to believe it's just a fall out of the numbers because they take on hard cases, but it's a lie. Their numbers reflect their view that no one should raise animals in their home, if it can at all be avoided.

They don't offer adoption because the animal shelters do that. Your entire premise makes no sense. They offer free euthanization for people who can't afford a vet to provide humane means.

It's kinda like claiming that an abortion clinic's adoption numbers are terrible, so therefore they believe that all children should be killed.

Securitywyrm:So of all the animals turned into PETA, 1877, only 130 of them were healthy enough to be transfered to an adoption shelter and the rest were put down.That they 'close out their books' by emptying the cages into the incinerator is all the proof I need that this place exists just as a slaughterhouse.

They don't offer adoption. Is this really that hard to understand? The service that they offer is free euthanization because vets cost money. The majority of the animals are killed the same day.

"I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion-aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance-as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring 'technicians,' or animal abusers."

cousin-merle:Securitywyrm: So of all the animals turned into PETA, 1877, only 130 of them were healthy enough to be transfered to an adoption shelter and the rest were put down.That they 'close out their books' by emptying the cages into the incinerator is all the proof I need that this place exists just as a slaughterhouse.

They don't offer adoption. Is this really that hard to understand? The service that they offer is free euthanization because vets cost money. The majority of the animals are killed the same day.

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters. They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters. Not all organizations do that.

Trivially wrong. Austin is open admission, takes in tens of thousands of animals per year, and saves over 90%. Reno too. There are dozens of open-admission shelters that have over 90% live outcome. PETA runs a slaughterhouse. Only an animal hater, or someone ignorant and wishing to remain so in the face of all evidence to the contrary, would stick up for these butchers.

Securitywyrm:cousin-merle: Securitywyrm: So of all the animals turned into PETA, 1877, only 130 of them were healthy enough to be transfered to an adoption shelter and the rest were put down.That they 'close out their books' by emptying the cages into the incinerator is all the proof I need that this place exists just as a slaughterhouse.

They don't offer adoption. Is this really that hard to understand? The service that they offer is free euthanization because vets cost money. The majority of the animals are killed the same day.

verbivore:Trivially wrong. Austin is open admission, takes in tens of thousands of animals per year, and saves over 90%. Reno too. There are dozens of open-admission shelters that have over 90% live outcome. PETA runs a slaughterhouse. Only an animal hater, or someone ignorant and wishing to remain so in the face of all evidence to the contrary, would stick up for these butchers.

cousin-merleThey don't offer adoption to the public. They offer free euthanization service. What do you not understand about this? The smear campaign is based on this false premise that they aren't finding enough homes for pets. That is not a service that they offer. They refer those pets to the other shelters.

yeah, it's true, PETA runs a slaughterhouse, or as you prefer to call it "free euthanasia." The issue is that they call it a shelter and tell people they'll take good care of the animal and find it a good home. They also accept the animal's vet records and favorite toy. Why would you bring those if you were just dropping the animal off to be killed? Why wouldn't they say "oh, we don't need those, this animal will be dead in five minutes"? PETA lies to the people who give them animals.

They DO NOT refer pets to other shelters. That's the whole point. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

skozlaw:rnatalie: They have to euthanize them immediately, they in fact have next to NO capacity to house animals.

[citation needed]

I'm not saying you're wrong because I, personally, have no idea what their capacity is or isn't, but considering that the only reason this stupid "issue" ever seems to get out is because their commercial enemies publicize it to make them look bad for purely selfish reasons, I'm not just going to accept any and every claim made.

You could do your own research. The VA DACS did some action against them a few years ago when it was arguing they weren't complying with the shelter laws. They were found to only have a few random cages in their headquarters offices, nothing approaching a proper shelter.

<I>PETA may not keep capacity for long term housing but that's not uncommon and painless euthanasia is still a damn sight better (and more ethical) than just letting some scumbag pet owner abandon an animal in his old house until it starves to death when the bank takes it and he has to go live in some slum apartment that doesn't allow pets.

And, again, PETA accepts anything. You don't keep housing if a lot of your animals are coming in are on their last legs with various diseases or too far wasted away to survive. You put them out of their misery quickly.</I>PETA Is not in any way unique. There are over a dozen shelters in the tidewater area around the area PeTA operates their headquarter. More than a few of them are run by the various municipality and takes animals under the same conditions as PETA: animals are accepted for free under any condition. Of course, these shelters will actually evaluate the animal, hold strays hoping to reunite with owners, attempt to place those who are suitable for such, rather than just marching them off to the little kitty showers for extermination.

ciberido:The very name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" sends the message that anyone who disagrees with their policies in the slightest is unethical.

Exactly- you can tell a lot about a group by what its name is. For instance "Pro-Life" implies everyone else is Pro-death (or 'anti-life', which ever way you want to put it). And there's nothing like implying that the other side is evil right in your very name to start a debate off right.

Groups that want to do it right start of with simple, descriptive names (for instance, "Pro-choice" implies the other side is anti-choice. Which they are) that do not vilify the opponent.

As you say, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" implies that anyone who disagrees is unethical. Even more, it implies that about anyone who isn't a member of PETA.

Theaetetus:nocturnal001: So their actual words that I posted don't mean exactly what I have said? Do we need to have a semantics debate?

No, they don't. And I'm happy to have that debate. I'll even start:PETA says "Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans."Does that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. It simply says that animals have value separate from their utility to us.

PETA continues: We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.Does that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. Sure, they believe humans and animals both have that right, but that doesn't mean that humans don't have more rights.

Continuing:Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."And does that say they believe animals have the same rights as humans? No. It repeats that animals have value beyond their usefulness to humans, and that, as with all creatures, they like living and don't like pain.

Are we to take these two clear statements - "animals have value even the absence of humans" and "animals have a right not to be tortured" - that PETA believes that animals should have the right to jury trials? Or that animals should be free from unreasonable searches? Or that animals should be allowed to vote?

Of course not. Clearly, their philosophy does not extend to the hyperbolic extremes you've cast it as.

Your turn.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money f ...

I'm surprised you are going with that. Bringing in legal rights to a discussion of ethics? "lolz, you think animals should be able to vote! lolzorz" Come on.

It's quite clear there in black and white. PETA values animals as highly as humans, they admit as much and their policies against medical research and animal products supports this. Attempting to cast their actions as comparable to assisted suicide is also quite silly I'd say. They aren't just putting down terminal animals, but also a large number of pets that just can't be adopted. I'll not be drawn in a ludicrous debate about whether or not PETAs use of certain terms slightly changes the meaning of their philosophy. I clearly have my answer from earlier, as you are being disingenous rather than naive.

Back to the crux of this whole thread. Is the fact that PETA puts down many animals that don't need to be killed because they don't want to spend the money to care for them in some way hypocritical? Like I said earlier.

So, it's ok to kill dogs and cats in order to free up money to run the rest of the PETA organization (greater good!), but it's NOT ok to kill some mice in order to save a large number of human lives. Right, that makes a lot of sense. Animals can be killed for the greater good of other animals, but animals can not be killed for the greater good of humans.

This is not a logically consistent viewpoint, unless they either value human life less than animals, they believe that medical research does not result in health improvements for humans, or that they are actually full of shiat and they care more about the idea of protecting animals than the animals themselves. Given their actions in this case, and in the past I do lean towards the last option. Very similiar to the anti-abortion folks I'd say. The claim is that they want to protect animals/fetuses-babies, but when faced with a choice between their poltical grandstanding and actual saving those creatures (by spending more/all of their money on dog care or working to prevent unwanted pregnancy through education/contraceptives) they stick with their grandstanding.

notto: Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters. They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters. Not all organizations do that.

All city/county/government shelters accept any animal that comes in the door. They're required by law to do that. PETA isn't performing some special service that's not available elsewhere.

scallywaghotness:In many cases of abandoned animals, euthanizing them is the only humane outcome. But hey it's a PETA hate thread.

Less than 10% of animals that come into a shelter truly need to be euthanized. There are 300+ no kill communities in the U.S., every single one of them has save rates of 90+%. Some of them have save rates of 97% or 98%. That's how few shelter shelter animals need to be euthanized. And those are open-intake shelters, meaning they take every animal and don't turn any away.

rnatalie: Admittedly, any shelter that doesn't turn away animals is going to have to euthanize a lot. Many are just not adoptable either because they have health or temperament issues that render them unplaceable (abused animals are frequently poorly socialized to begin with) or just not cute enough to fill the demand.

Nope. See above. There are more than 300 open-admission no kill communities in the U.S. Save rates of more than 90%.

skozlawIt's much higher, but it's hardly indefensible. PETA shelters accept any animal in any condition. Very, very few shelters do that. They also take in a huge number of surrenders which can be euthanized the same day.

Once again, any city/county/government shelter takes animals in any condition. The lazy ones kill the animals. The good ones work to get them adopted.

Phins:The issue is that they call it a shelter and tell people they'll take good care of the animal and find it a good home. They also accept the animal's vet records and favorite toy. Why would you bring those if you were just dropping the animal off to be killed? Why wouldn't they say "oh, we don't need those, this animal will be dead in five minutes"? PETA lies to the people who give them animals.

They DO NOT refer pets to other shelters. That's the whole point. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

"The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"

Theaetetus: Ohlookabutterfly: Theaetetus: Ohlookabutterfly: Have you ever been wrong in your life?Of course I have. But never to this degree: "When an organization uses guilt tactics to the degree peta does they don't get to be hypocrites. If they do what they chide others for they have instantly lost all credibility."

See, you (and others) are chiding PETA for doing something you have no problem with, which, by your own definition, means you've instantly lost all credibility. Thus, because of your post, we should disregard your post.

Now see here. I don't condone killing animals. Not for population control because some people are just terrible at living up to the responsibilities they take on. I have 2 cats right now and would have many more if I ever walked into a shelter. Not once did I state that I agreed euthanasia was acceptable but you just painted me with that brush as you did most others here simply because they individually did not say that they disagreed with it either. That is you knowingly putting false words in others mouths and is why you are viewed as such a dick.

Are you a vegan? I'm sure you must be, since you said you don't condone killing animals, and I'd hate to suggest that you were a hypocrite with no credibility. At least, not without confirming it.

Obviously you don't really care about peta either, you just enjoy being contrary.

Just because I don't ascribe to your black vs. white, our-team-or-their-team philosophy doesn't mean I'm just being contrary. See, I have the ability to criticize an organization for things they actually say and do, without the need to go into hyperbole and suggest that they're inhuman monsters and that everything they do is the exact opposite of all that's holy and good. I can disagree with PETA's sexist and misogynistic campaigns, while simultaneously acknowledging that they're not actually a death-cult. And I can also disagree with people calling them a monstrous death-cult, while agreeing that PETA shouldn't rece ...

My black vs. white philosophy? See, as I said, you have nowhere near the context to make that assumption. Once again you are stating things about me without any idea whether I am truly so narrow-minded, or lacking in the ability to see the many facets of this issue and judge them individually. You have again put words in my mouth and now seem to know intimately my cognitive abilities. You have proven yourself a contrarian by being contrary with every post you make. You are defending evil people simply because you must get pleasure from feeling more articulate than others, which you really aren't. You are condescending and sanctimonious. Potential indications of narcissism.

Ohlookabutterfly:My black vs. white philosophy? See, as I said, you have nowhere near the context to make that assumption. Once again you are stating things about me without any idea whether I am truly so narrow-minded, or lacking in the ability to see the many facets of this issue and judge them individually. You have again put words in my mouth and now seem to know intimately my cognitive abilities

If I dislike PETA, then I must agree with you completely and just enjoy being contrary. Or, alternatively, I must be defending "evil people", since I disagree with you (which apparently makes me a narcissist?).Sorry, bub, I'm not going to let you get away with putting words in my mouth and trying to frame my position as one of the only two extremes you can envision.

Also:You have proven yourself a contrarian by being contrary with every post you make.

What does this even mean? Do youhave any idea what you're trying to say? "You disagree with me, so therefore you're disagreeable!" Well, no shiat, Sherlock. The only shocking thing is that you think that statement somehow means anything further than its tautological truth.

cousin-merle:Phins: The issue is that they call it a shelter and tell people they'll take good care of the animal and find it a good home. They also accept the animal's vet records and favorite toy. Why would you bring those if you were just dropping the animal off to be killed? Why wouldn't they say "oh, we don't need those, this animal will be dead in five minutes"? PETA lies to the people who give them animals.

They DO NOT refer pets to other shelters. That's the whole point. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

That's not what the VA inspectors found.

"The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"

You are making things up.

Hmm, it's almost like PETA publicly espouses one ideology but in actuality their goals and beliefs are something different altogether. How odd, never heard that accusation before. Stop, reverse that. Yes, I have heard that before, many times. Perhaps they are so intent on ending pet ownership that they would rather kill animals than see them adopted. With their record, I would not be surprised.

cousin-merleThat's not what the VA inspectors found."The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"You are making things up.

The point is that PETA tells people they will take good care of the animals and find them homes.

For comparison, I looked up the Nebraska Humane Society. They're not "no kill". They euthanize animals who have severe health issues or behavioral problems (they call it "no suffering" - can't say whether I know that's true or not). They'll take any animal you bring them, wild, feral, or tame. They list their stats online: out of 17,000+ animals received last year, about 4,800 were euthanized. That's about 28%.

According to that report, PETA took in a total of 1877 animals and euthanized 1675, which works out to 89%.

FYI, the web site Why PETA Kills is a project of The No Kill Advocacy Center. The only purpose of The No Kill Advocacy Center is to end the killing of adoptable animals in shelters. It's not run by anyone with ulterior motives or lobbying contracts.

Phins:cousin-merle That's not what the VA inspectors found."The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"You are making things up.

The point is that PETA tells people they will take good care of the animals and find them homes.

ANIMAL PEOPLE in mid-2004 received detailed complaints from several North Carolina no-kill shelter volunteers and one ex-PETA employee who charged that PETA was taking animals from them who had been sterilized and vaccinated in preparation for adoption, promising to place them in homes, and then refused to account for them. The volunteers believed the animals were being killed. The ex-PETA employee affirmed their suspicions, but the complainants had no physical evidence to support their case."The arrests have left local animal rescuers with more questions than answers," summarized Luci Weldon of The Warren Record.Macon animal rescuer Ruth Brown told Weldon that "In December 2003, while she was working with Rainbow Rescue, a no-kill organization in Roanoke Rapids, she conducted e-mail correspondence with an individual who described herself as being active in animal rescue and who used the Community Animal Project, run by PETA, to provide foster care for the rescued animals."I thought it was the answer from heaven," Brown recounted.Wrote Weldon, "Brown said that she was told that local animals transferred to PETA would be prepared for potential adoption. As animals were given to PETA, Brown said she had contact with a representative of CAP in Norfolk, where PETA is headquartered, as well as contact with Adria Hinkle."Said Brown, "We asked them about the anim ...

None of this crap makes any sense at all. So your position is that PeTA goes out of their way to fool people and other rescue operations for the sole purpose of killing them? What is the angle for PeTA? If they are really hellbent on killing as many pets as possible, how come this problem is contained to one lousy cat killing factory in Virginia? Or maybe there is an even bigger, more clandestine, gabillion dollar conspiracy to euthanize cats?

I'm telling ya, pets make some people crazy. Texas makes it legal to execute humans for trespassing and no one cares... but PeTA drives people into frothing lunacy.

Phins:FYI, the web site Why PETA Kills is a project of The No Kill Advocacy Center. The only purpose of The No Kill Advocacy Center is to end the killing of adoptable animals in shelters. It's not run by anyone with ulterior motives or lobbying contracts.

Then why do they need to make up all this crap about PeTA if their cause is so noble. farking animal hoarders... it should be a crime.

karmaceutical:What is the angle for PeTA? If they are really hellbent on killing as many pets as possible, how come this problem is contained to one lousy cat killing factory in Virginia? Or maybe there is an even bigger, more clandestine, gabillion dollar conspiracy to euthanize cats?

The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"

verbivore:The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"

How does PETA make money by spaying, neutering or euthanizing animals for free?

karmaceutical:Phins: FYI, the web site Why PETA Kills is a project of The No Kill Advocacy Center. The only purpose of The No Kill Advocacy Center is to end the killing of adoptable animals in shelters. It's not run by anyone with ulterior motives or lobbying contracts.

Then why do they need to make up all this crap about PeTA if their cause is so noble. farking animal hoarders... it should be a crime.

They don't make anything up about PETA. If an organization's purpose is to end the killing of adoptable animals in shelters, and PETA is killing adoptable animals in shelters, and you're pretending not to see how "working to end killing" is in line with their mission of "working to end killing" I call BS. That's the PETA marketing line and you're spouting it unquestioningly.

verbivore:karmaceutical:What is the angle for PeTA? If they are really hellbent on killing as many pets as possible, how come this problem is contained to one lousy cat killing factory in Virginia? Or maybe there is an even bigger, more clandestine, gabillion dollar conspiracy to euthanize cats?

The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"

KiplingKat278:Then they should NOT be calling it an"Animal Shelter." They should be calling it a Euthanasia Program because it sounds like that is all it is. According to the VA inspectors, adoption seems to be only open to people who work at PETA HQ. The rest are killed. From the multiple reports above, it sounds like they have been misleading people, taking pets out of viable adoption programs to kill them. They sure as HELL should not be taking in wild animals if there is no one there trained in their care.

They explain exactly what it is on the page. What do you think the last two words of the "animal shelter of last resort" means? Don't be pedantic. They don't offer adoption to the public nor do they pretend to. They offer free euthanization in lieu of paying a vet.

cousin-merle:verbivore: The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"

How does PETA make money by spaying, neutering or euthanizing animals for free?

Phins: And where exactly on PETA's web site do they tell the public they're running a slaughterhouse? Since it's such a great service and all, I would think they'd publicize it.cousin-merleYou mean like this?http://features.peta.org/petasaves/

Phins:I quickly lost count of the lies on that page. Apologists for PETA's killing have argued that all of the animals they kill are "unadoptable." But this claim is a lie for numerous reasons. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable and PETA insiders have admitted as much, one former intern reporting that he quit in disgust after witnessing perfectly healthy puppies and kittens in the kill room. It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making the determination as to whether or not an animal is "unadoptable." It is a lie because according to a state inspector, the PETA facility where the animals are impounded was designed to house animals for no more than 24 hours. It is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much during a 2008 television interview: when asked whether or not PETA kills healthy animals, she responded, "Absolutely." It is a lie because PETA staff have described the animals they have killed as "healthy," "adorable" and "perfect." It is a lie because PETA itself admits it does not believe in "right to life for animals." And it is a lie because when asked what sort of effort PETA routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care, PETA responded that it had "no comment."

PETA doesn't offer adoption. They offer euthanasia or spay/neuter. I just showed you their website. Why would they be making determinations on whether or not to put pets up for adoption when that is not their service? Why would they house animals for more than 24 hours when they do not offer adoption?

Or how about this:PETA sent a congratulatory gift basket to a shelter when it announced it was going to start killing after four years of being no kill.

PETA opposes no kill. This isn't news.

Or this:Pictures of healthy adoptable animals killed by PETA, animals described by PETA as "adorable" and "perfect." WARNING: graphic pics of dead animals.

I love the scare quotes around single words, and when you go to their documents page for proof, it is still just scare quotes around single words, not any kind of quote in context. I had to put down my first dog for cochlear infections (well, my parents had to; this was a long time ago). He looked perfectly adorable but was in pain every day.

cousin-merle:They explain exactly what it is on the page. What do you think the last two words of the "animal shelter of last resort" means? Don't be pedantic. They don't offer adoption to the public nor do they pretend to. They offer free euthanization in lieu of paying a vet.

For the last time, ANY CITY/COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER WILL EUTHANIZE AN ANIMAL FOR FREE. This is not some noble service by PETA that is unavailable anywhere else. The law requires these shelters to take in all animals and they have no problem euthanizing sick or aggressive animals.

Rather than your knee-jerk defense of killing, why don't you read some of the countless stories, including ones from former PETA employees and interns of PETA KILLING HEALTHY ANIMALS.

Anyone that doesn't see the discrepancy there is a, well, sociopath. It's akin to freeing black people, and then killing the one's that are poor, sick, or were just simply too numerous to easily care for.

According to their own logic, it would be ok if we thought PETA and their followers/supporters should be euthanized and actually carried it out. They are sick, that much is clear.

The only morally justifiable euthanasia is assisted suicide. Anything else is murder. We don't kill people who lose a leg, have a heart disease, or healthy homeless people(or sick homeless people for that matter).

We try to assist them, to comfort them, heal them, rehabilitate them.

Since we cannot communicate with animals well enough to establish a desire to end it all, we shouldn't be doing so except in extreme cases where death is right around the corner. IF we're going to have high andconsistent moral standards as such.

I'm a meat lover. Cannot deny killing for food, but even animals do it. It's a matter of survival and health, not morals. No such thing as evil, imo. But there is natural and healthy. Dogs and cats both come from predatory stock who literally stalk prey and tear it apart. Why should we limit ourselves? Because we're better than that? We're not animals? Bullshiat.

If you don't want to, fine. Eat only veggies. Don't try to guilt trip others into doing the same. Makes you no better than Westboro Baptists.(who are a convenient bad example of morally zealotic behavior).

KiplingKat278:Well, first by lying about it."PETA went on to insist that in 2001, the year Friedrich lionized arsonists, PETA "gave $200,000 to humane societies and SPCAs for their local work ... All of our finances are detailed in our annual report which people can check out at PETA.org." Well, we looked at PETA's webiste, and there's no way to verify this claim. On documents that PETA files with the IRS, the group listed less than $8,000 in gifts to humane societies and SPCAs during 2001. In that same year, they gave $5,000 to Animal Liberation Front's militant Josh Harper and $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front. PETA either misled Fox News viewers or the IRS. "

FYI, a shelter's costs average out to $250-$300 per animal. So even if PETA did give $8,000 to humane societies and SPCAs, it was only enough to save 26--39 animals.

Phins:For the last time, ANY CITY/COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER WILL EUTHANIZE AN ANIMAL FOR FREE. This is not some noble service by PETA that is unavailable anywhere else. The law requires these shelters to take in all animals and they have no problem euthanizing sick or aggressive animals.

cousin-merle:PETA doesn't offer adoption. They offer euthanasia or spay/neuter. I just showed you their website. Why would they be making determinations on whether or not to put pets up for adoption when that is not their service? Why would they house animals for more than 24 hours when they do not offer adoption?

By the way, one crappy little nonprofit in Austin (emancipet.org) started by one overworked veterinarian (Dr. Ellen Jefferson) with one crappy little office has sterilized double the number of animals that PETA has, with their "fleet" of spayneutermatic flying tanks and $30 million annual budget. Fark PETA. They exist to make money for PETA, nothing more. They're not even good at performing the coverup story that they feed the gullible people that send them money every time they post a picture of a bunny in a mascara factory.

verbivore:By the way, one crappy little nonprofit in Austin (emancipet.org) started by one overworked veterinarian (Dr. Ellen Jefferson) with one crappy little office has sterilized double the number of animals that PETA has, with their "fleet" of spayneutermatic flying tanks and $30 million annual budget. Fark PETA. They exist to make money for PETA, nothing more. They're not even good at performing the coverup story that they feed the gullible people that send them money every time they post a picture of a bunny in a mascara factory.

Only $1 million goes to spay/neuter. Emancipet also apparently charges for most spay/neuter. They only do 4000 free ones a year, which is less than half of what PETA does. You're really off on a tangent here.